DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 3/6/26. Claims 6-10 have been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pey USPA_20200346440_A1.
1. Regarding Claim 1, Pey discloses a multilayer film (Title) useable in food packaging and pouches (corresponds to claimed retort food packaging containers) (paragraph 0100) comprising a substrate (corresponds to claimed base film) and a sealant (corresponds to claimed sealant film); wherein said sealant (corresponds to claimed sealant film) comprises a sealant outer layer (corresponds to claimed laminate layer), a sealant core layer (corresponds to claimed core layer), and a sealant inner layer (corresponds to claimed seal layer), all of which comprise linear polyethylene (paragraphs 0044, 0045, 0099). Furthermore, said linear polyethylene can be polymerized using a metallocene catalyst (paragraphs 0028, 0048, 0072, 0082, Example 1). Pey further discloses that the polyethylene densities used in its sealant (corresponds to claimed sealant film) can be made of the same kinds of polyethylene as described for its substrate (corresponds to claimed base film) but with different densities (paragraph 0087) .
2. In this vein, Pey discloses in Sample N. 2 (Table 2) a sealant core layer (corresponds to claimed core layer) comprising 30 wt% of PE-1 having a density of 0.916, 35 wt% of PE-2 having a density of 0.940, and 35 wt% of ExxonMobil HDPE HTA 108 having a density of 0.961:
(0.30)*(0.916) + (0.35)*(0.940) + (0.35)*(0.961) = 0.940 g/cm3; which falls into the claimed range.
3. Furthermore, in Sample N. 2, (Table 2), Pey discloses for its sealant outer layer (corresponds to claimed laminate layer) using 70 wt% of PE-2 having a density of 0.940 and 30 wt% of Enable 20-05HH having a density of 0.920:
(0.70)*(0.940) + (0.30)*(0.920) = 0.934 g/cm3; which falls into the claimed range.
4. Although in Sample No. 1a (Table 1) and Sample N.2 (Table 2), Pey doesn’t exemplify for its sealant inner layer (corresponds to claimed seal layer) a density that meets the claimed range, it does disclose generally that said sealant inner layer (corresponds to claimed seal layer) can be 0.940 g/cm3 and above till 0.945 g/cm3 (paragraph 0011); thereby meeting the amended claimed range.
5. Although the sealant inner layer’s (corresponds to claimed seal layer) density above is not found within the same embodiment as the other two aforementioned layers, it would nevertheless be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to try these different ranges across different embodiments out of a desire of optimization as is routinely done with densities when it comes to desired properties like stiffness and toughness.
6. Regarding Claim 2, Pey discloses that its MFR ranges for all of its layers falls into the claimed range (paragraphs 0011, 0012).
7. Regarding Claim 3, Pey discloses that the density can be as high as 0.945 g/cm3 (paragraphs 0011, 0087).
8. Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Pey discloses food packaging pouches (corresponds to claimed containers) (paragraph 0003). And also discloses that said substrate is laminated to the sealant outer layer (corresponds to claimed laminate layer) (paragraph 0098).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: “Further, Pey does not teach or suggest one skilled in the art to modify its disclosed components (e.g., the inner and outer layers) to fall within the density ranges currently recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully submits that paragraph 0011, of Pey, indicates ranges for the densities of its layers that do fall into the claimed ranges.
Applicants state: “By utilizing the laminate structure as currently recited in claim 1, including the specific densities of (1A) seal layer, (1B) core layer, and (1C) laminate layer, and wherein layers (1B) and (1C) are polymerized using a metallocene catalyst, the invention of claim 1 surprisingly balances heat resistance at retort temperatures with impact resistance at low temperatures (e.g., 5°C).”
The Examiner respectfully submits that these “specific densities” that balance heat resistance include the earlier claimed 1A density of 0.915 kg/m3 (see original instant, independent Claim 1) which was exemplified by Pey.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 21, 2026